Welcome to DBSTalk

Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!

wow, we made it 7 days without a posting on this topic and now today we get slammed but a ton more useless messages.

you won't find any valuable information by posting on here, the people that know aren't talking and furthermore don't post on here

Thank you for your wonderful insight.

I guess since you just posted here you don't know anything either.

------------------------------------------------------------------------I read a report that said the typical symptoms of stress were eating too much, drinking too much, impulse buying, and driving too fast. Who are they kidding? That's my idea of a perfect day.

Directv 3/1998-9/2011 now with Verizon FIOS and loving the faster DVR and being able to use both the external & internal drives at the same time

I agree... if Verizon went to the FCC about getting the channel(s) they wanted due to the loophole and was successful, what on earth is D* waiting for regarding CSN Philly? D* seems just uninterested in carrying this channel. People have been asking for it for years..now that D* finally has a solid chance, they appear to be doing nothing.

In a response I received from the FCC about the issue, D* has filed no formal complaint or otherwise against Comcrap regarding CSN Philly.

Well. Let's see. Verizon went after a one trick pony (cablevision) for the only product they had to sell.

Directv would have to go after Comcast which only owns a good chunk of basic cable, a good chunk of regional sports channels and one of the major broadcast networks not to mention the carrier of a lot of the directv bandwidth for video on demand.

Yup. Same thing.

Verizon had nothing to lose. Directv would be bringing the equivalent if a lawsuit against a company they are in constant negotiation with on many fronts. You don't do that lightly.

Well. Let's see. Verizon went after a one trick pony (cablevision) for the only product they had to sell.

Directv would have to go after Comcast which only owns a good chunk of basic cable, a good chunk of regional sports channels and one of the major broadcast networks not to mention the carrier of a lot of the directv bandwidth for video on demand.

Yup. Same thing.

Verizon had nothing to lose. Directv would be bringing the equivalent if a lawsuit against a company they are in constant negotiation with on many fronts. You don't do that lightly.

Sorry, but again this makes no sense. What does the number of channels that either provider have have ANYTHING to do with it? The FCC's closing of the loophole requires that a provider come to them with a complaint to REQUEST A SPECIFIC CHANNEL. It wouldn't matter if Comcast had a thousand RSNs that they held under the loophole. The action that DirecTV needs to take to get CSN Philly is EXACTLY the same action that Verizon had to do to get MSG. Each channel requested in this way requires the exact same action to the FCC.

And what does it mean to say that 'Verizon had nothing to lose'? I don't understand that. What does DirecTV have to lose by making this move? They would go to the FCC, request the channel, make the case that they're losing customer share by not having the channel, and the FCC would make its determination. If they decided in favor of DirecTV, then the FCC would force Comcast's hand. It's pretty cut and dry, and it's not the equivalent of a lawsuit - they're not 'taking on Comcast', with all its massive holdings, in the courts. They would go to the FCC and make a claim that not having CSN Philly is hurting them financially. They're not taking on Comcast at all. They would be making the claim that they're getting hurt financially by not having the channel. It wouldn't matter if the provider holding the channel is Comcast or Bob's Big Cable Company - the claim to the FCC would be EXACTLY the same. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the market-share that either Comcast or CV have in their respective areas. But to get the channel DirecTV actually HAS to take the step of requesting it via the FCC.

Actually one last point and I'll drop my tirade. I believe that DirecTV would actually have an EASIER time of convincing the FCC than Verizon does to get MSG. Why? Read the filing that Verizon made to the FCC a couple years ago when they requested that the loophole be closed. Verizon already made DirecTV's case. They laid out the case that not having an RSN hurts providers in general. And to make their case, they used an interesting measure - dbs penetration in two specific markets (Philly and San Diego) relative to other markets around the country. Philly in particular showed how not having access to an RSN reduces (by 40% in the case of Philly) dbs penetration rates in those markets.

On top of that - the FCC bought their argument! That argument is what led the FCC to close the loophole. Verizon already made DirecTV's case. They just have to pull the information from Verizon's filing to the FCC from a couple years ago, and they basically have their filing to the FCC. On top of that, since that argument already won the day at the FCC, I would find it very hard to believe that the FCC would turn around and then reject DirecTV's request. One final, final point - if I were DirecTV, I would submit this before 2012. Not to make this political, but after the next presidential election, if Obama loses, then the FCC totally changes hands. Right now you have an FCC that's sympathetic to the case of getting rid of the loophole. Future FCCs may not be.

Sorry, but again this makes no sense. What does the number of channels that either provider have have ANYTHING to do with it? The FCC's closing of the loophole requires that a provider come to them with a complaint to REQUEST A SPECIFIC CHANNEL. It wouldn't matter if Comcast had a thousand RSNs that they held under the loophole. The action that DirecTV needs to take to get CSN Philly is EXACTLY the same action that Verizon had to do to get MSG. Each channel requested in this way requires the exact same action to the FCC.

And what does it mean to say that 'Verizon had nothing to lose'? I don't understand that. What does DirecTV have to lose by making this move? They would go to the FCC, request the channel, make the case that they're losing customer share by not having the channel, and the FCC would make its determination. If they decided in favor of DirecTV, then the FCC would force Comcast's hand. It's pretty cut and dry, and it's not the equivalent of a lawsuit - they're not 'taking on Comcast', with all its massive holdings, in the courts. They would go to the FCC and make a claim that not having CSN Philly is hurting them financially. They're not taking on Comcast at all. They would be making the claim that they're getting hurt financially by not having the channel. It wouldn't matter if the provider holding the channel is Comcast or Bob's Big Cable Company - the claim to the FCC would be EXACTLY the same. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the market-share that either Comcast or CV have in their respective areas. But to get the channel DirecTV actually HAS to take the step of requesting it via the FCC.

Feel better now?

You do not take a company you want to continue to do business with on a regular basis and need to negogiate with them for best deals in the future to court unless you postively have to. Filing with the FCC is the equivalent of going to court.

Of course they would be taking on Comcast. You really think a company that is in a snit over not having Sunday Ticket is not going to hold a grudge?

DirecTV may eventually go to the FCC but only if they think it is worth the risk of damaging other deals and/or really, really need CSN Philly for financial health. (I can give you a clue on the latter....they don't.)

One last thing. If you force a woman to marry you, do you let her make your meals?

You do not take a company you want to continue to do business with on a regular basis and need to negogiate with them for best deals in the future to court unless you postively have to. Filing with the FCC is the equivalent of going to court.

Of course they would be taking on Comcast. You really think a company that is in a snit over not having Sunday Ticket is not going to hold a grudge?

DirecTV may eventually go to the FCC but only if they think it is worth the risk of damaging other deals and/or really, really need CSN Philly for financial health. (I can give you a clue on the latter....they don't.)

One last thing. If you force a woman to marry you, do you let her make your meals?

I'm sorry, but this is just flat wrong. DirecTV would NOT be taking on Comcast. They make a request FOR THE CHANNEL. The FCC determines if DirecTV made their case or not. IF they do, then the FCC forces Comcast's hand. There's also one other big way that it's not the same as a lawsuit - DirecTV doesn't have to demonstrate any wrong-doing on Comcast's part.

In fact, Comcast could be doing everything totally legally, and still be required to give over the channel. That's because this has nothing whatsoever to do with which provider has which channels. The only thing DirecTV has to demonstrate is that they're being hurt, financially, by not having CSN Philly. Which would be insanely easy to do - like I said, Verizon already made their case for them.

As for contract negotiations, again, the FCC requires that these providers work in good faith. CV has been gunning for Verizon and AT&T from the get-go... that does not give them the green light to screw over either company in negotiations for their Rainbow Media channels. CV isn't allowed to charge one company something outlandish compared to what it charges other companies. Comcast would be no different in this situation. They wouldn't screw over DirecTV because they wouldn't be allowed to.

Besides, this wouldn't be the first time that DirecTV went after Comcast on their RSNs. A number of years ago they themselves went to the FCC requesting that the loophole be closed, and they did so by specifically targeting the RSNs that Comcast owns. Funny that they weren't worried about blow-back back then. But now they are?

I'm sorry, but you're just setting up obstructions that aren't there. They're non sequitirs. Now there may be another valid reason that DirecTV is holding off. It sure seems like the FCC is dragging its feet on implementing this regulation. But unless companies like DirecTV push the FCC to act, they'll never get the channel. I believe the regulation is in place to get the ball moving on this, and it's just simply mind-boggling that a company like DirecTV would sit on the side-lines like this.

Finally - on the NFL ST front... let Comcast make that case. You really think they're not going to do it anyway? You think they already haven't been making that case? Of course they will and they have. But it's not the same thing as what we're talking about here. The NFL isn't owned by some cable company. They're an independent third party who signed an exclusive carry contract with a specific provider. That's totally different, and TOTALLY outside the FCC's perview. In order to force them to open up NFL ST, the FCC would basically be exerting authority to override a legal contract. Which it has no authority to do. The loophole is a specific construct which IS within the FCC's perview.

I'm sorry, but this is just flat wrong. DirecTV would NOT be taking on Comcast. They make a request FOR THE CHANNEL. The FCC determines if DirecTV made their case or not. IF they do, then the FCC forces Comcast's hand. There's also one other big way that it's not the same as a lawsuit - DirecTV doesn't have to demonstrate any wrong-doing on Comcast's part.

They file a complaint with the FCC. The FCC hears the case and makes a ruling which Comcast has to follow. Other than the people making the decision not wearing a robe and having a gavel, that is a court case.

As for taking on Comcast, of course they are. Go try to force a business to do something they don't want to do by legal means and see how much they cooperate with you the next time.

I give up. Maybe you are not seeing it because you want the channel but that is EXACTLY how it would go down. I deal with large deals and long term contracts regularly and I know that you do not antagonize your business partner or force them to do something through legal means unless a) it is your last resort and it really hurts you.

Either DirecTV thinks they can still work the issue out or thinks that a forced deal for CSN Philly will cost them more later on. There is no other way to read this. If they decide it is worth the risk, they will do it. It is called business.

What amazes me is that you actually think that Comcast would happily do what they don't want to (obviously) do and not have it affect further dealings. Where the heck do you get that idea?

As for contract negotiations, again, the FCC requires that these providers work in good faith. CV has been gunning for Verizon and AT&T from the get-go... that does not give them the green light to screw over either company in negotiations for their Rainbow Media channels. CV isn't allowed to charge one company something outlandish compared to what it charges other companies. Comcast would be no different in this situation. They wouldn't screw over DirecTV because they wouldn't be allowed to.

Sorry, this is just so naive. Comcast is ALREADY SCREWING DIRECTV. They pulled Versus. They haven't giving them CSN Philly or CSN Northwest. Sounds like a screwing to me.

Nope, CSNNW will never be on DirecTV because Comcast owns 100% of the channel and is demanding something like $3 a subscriber nationally, knowing that D* will never pay for it. So they get to keep it exclusive to the Northwest and all Blazers and Duck games are only shown in a tiny portion of the nation that no one else can see unless you get NBA League Pass, which does you no good in Oregon.

Good job Blazers and Ducks...you have prevented over half of your fanbase from ever seeing you again.

Nope, CSNNW will never be on DirecTV because Comcast owns 100% of the channel and is demanding something like $3 a subscriber nationally, knowing that D* will never pay for it. So they get to keep it exclusive to the Northwest and all Blazers and Duck games are only shown in a tiny portion of the nation that no one else can see unless you get NBA League Pass, which does you no good in Oregon.

Good job Blazers and Ducks...you have prevented over half of your fanbase from ever seeing you again.

i still think D should file a complaint, why would C want to negoiate now. Let the FCC rule and set a fair price. everyday that goes buy c wins

i wish someone know a directv exec and could ask info on the status

la24philly .... can you please take an extra 30 seconds when posting and type full words and check your spelling.... I am not even asking for you to check/correct your grammar .... it would really make it easier for the rest of us to follow your train of thought ...thank you